See other 9/11 Articles
Title: The 9/11 conspiracy plots thicken
Source:
Seattle Times
URL Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht ... /2003250424_911conspire09.html
Published: Sep 09, 2006
Author: Michael Powell, wapo
Post Date: 2010-07-19 22:23:35 by Dakmar
Keywords: None
Views: 19463
Comments: 989
They are politically diverse and include academics, ex-officials and Web surfers. All share a belief that the Bush administration played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Their numbers seem to speak to Americans' innate distrust of their government. The Washington Post NEW YORK — He felt no shiver of doubt in those first terrible hours. He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed al-Qaida had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001, were as stated on the screen. It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. He wondered why 110-story towers crashed and military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded, much less cashiered. "To me, the report read as a cartoon," Griffin said. "It's a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives." Such as? "There was massive complicity in this attack by U.S. government operatives." If that feels like a skip off the cliff of established reality, more Americans are in free fall than you might guess. There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the extent of belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. 36 percent suspicious A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act." Establishment assessments of the believers tend toward the psychotherapeutic. Many academics, politicians and thinkers left, right and center say the conspiracy theories are a case of one plus one equals five. It's a piling up of improbabilities. Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, has studied the collapse of the twin towers. "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints," Eager says. "Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing — it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down." But the chatter out there is loud enough for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to post a Web "fact sheet" poking holes in the conspiracy theories and defending its report on the towers. Motley crew The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" has stopped looking for truth from the government. A cacophonous and free-range a bunch of conspiracists, they produce hip-hop inflected documentaries and scholarly conferences. The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. Did you see that the CIA met with bin Laden in a hospital room in Dubai? Check out this Pakistani site; there are really weird doings in Baluchistan ... Peter Knight, senior lecturer in American studies at the University of Manchester and editor of the 2002 book "Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America," called the movement "a strange beast, an amalgam of elements. You've got the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war crowd — you know, if they lied about the war, maybe they lied about 9/11. Another part is people merely interested in the anomalies, with no preconceived political agenda. "Then you have the more traditional right-wing conspiracy part of the continuum that believes a vast cabal has taken over the United States, the mega-conspiracy of the right's new world order. To them, all of these things are connected. Each group inserts 9/11 into its pre-existing conspiracy model." The academic wing is led by Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota; and Daniel Orr, retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. Professor suspended The movement's de facto minister of engineering is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University who has studied vectors and velocities and tested explosives and concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition, sped by a thousand pounds of high-grade thermite. Jones has been placed on paid leave while the Mormon-church-owned school investigates his claims, it was announced Friday. The physicist published his views two weeks ago in the book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out." Former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger is a senior military-affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon — or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be. Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss. "Who did it? Elements of our government and M-16 and the Mossad. The government's case is a laugh-out-loud proposition. They used patsies and lies and subterfuge and there's no way that Bush and Cheney could have invaded Iraq without the help of 9/11," Reynolds asserts. They are cantankerous and sometimes distrust each other — who knows where the double agents lurk? But unreasonable questions resonate with the reasonable. Colleen Kelly's brother, a salesman, had breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11. After he died she founded September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows to oppose the Iraq war. She lives in the Bronx and gives a gingerly embrace to the conspiracy crowd. "Sometimes I listen to them and I think that's sooooo outlandish and bizarre," she says. "But that day had such disastrous geopolitical consequences. If David Ray Griffin asks uncomfortable questions and points out painful discrepancies, good for him." Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11," sold more than 100,000 copies and became a movement founding stone. Last year he traveled through New England, giving speeches. One evening in West Hartford, Conn., 400 mostly middle-aged and upper-middle-class doctors and lawyers, teachers and social workers sat waiting. Griffin took the podium and laid down his ideas with calm and cool. He concluded: "It is already possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt one very important thing: The destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. The welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed." The audience rose and applauded for more than a minute. No patience Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based left-leaning think tank, is no fan of the 9/11 Commission. He believes a serious investigation should have led to indictments and the firing of incompetent generals and civilian officials. But he has no patience with the conspiracy theorists. "They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," says Berlet. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet. That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard. "I love 'The X-Files' but I don't base my research on it. My vision of hell is having to review these [conspiracy] books over and over again." In the days after Sept. 11, experts claimed temperatures reached 2,000 degrees on the upper floors. Others claimed steel melted. Nope. What happened, says Eager, the MIT materials-science professor, is that jet fuel sloshed around and beams got rubbery. "It's not too much to think that you could have some regions at 900 degrees and others at 1,200 degrees, and that will distort the beams." The truth movement doesn't really care for Eager. A Web site casts a fisheye of suspicion at the professor and his colleagues. "Did the MIT have prior knowledge?" notes one chat room. "This is for sure another speculative topic ... " Professsor Jones' suspension was reported Friday by The Associated Press. Peter Knight was quoted by McClatchy Newspapers.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 961.
#14. To: Dakmar (#0)
Are you in teenage-wasteland?
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this: That isn't the author of the article of this thread. "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET buckeroo posted on 2010-07-23 21:14:55 ET [Locked] Trace Private Reply Reply: I know Loizeaux wasn't the author of the article. He was part of AGA's list (#9) that you quoted in a post to him (#1137 You To: AGAviator #1096) . The title of the thread was mentioned in my post to you to bring the topic back to the subject of CD and Loizeaux's statement about it at #9 in AGA's list, the premise of which was already debunked with an alert to that fact at Post #982 and again at Post #1109. Just wanted to clarify that for you. ______________________ Replying to AGAviator @ Post #857 of the 9/11 demolition theory challenged: What satelite phones with noise filters? I don't understand your next question about sotto voce. There were places in the alleged phone call recordings without anyone speaking and no engine-noise heard. And the Right Here link you posted to me is the very same NTSB pdf footnote link I posted to you from your Wikipedia page reference for Flight 77 that had nothing in it at all about 40 hours and 11 flights prior to 9/11 on the FDR.
It brings to tears to my eyes since several REAL attempts to persuade and convince a pile of rabble rousers, HELL bent on pushing a conspiracy agenda killed the thread. That thread could have gone stellar here at 4um bringing the truth about some of the silly conspiracy plots. I shall renew the effort, too.
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this It brings to tears to my eyes Yes buckie, you cried like a little girl when nobody wanted to buy the BS you were selling, and instead, people posted facts and evidence which tore your little fairie tale to shreads.
Oh, did the widdle buckywoo cwy? Maybe he should go running home to his mama and tell her the big kids on the internet are beating the crap out of him for lying.
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
Good one.
Good one. How does this comment rate on your vulgarity scale?
For general antagonistic attitude and creating dissent without contributing to the discussions on this site, your account has been closed. I've reviewed your past remarks, and you have ridiculed, defamed, and made rude remarks. Although I think you are intelligent, and capable of good research you are not using those skills in a way that promotes our Constitutional Republic, and in fact is more in line with harming same. I wish you well - but not on this website. Goldi-Lox posted on 2009-11-15 21:12:12 ET And your first post at LP.... You practice, promote and tolerate the rawest racial vilification of these people. Objet posted enough of your stomach-turners to make THAT point... You fling around vile personal attacks -- e.g., personally charging ME with "hating Jews" and hating YOU because you are a Jew... But then, in addition to your down-and-dirty resort to smears of anti-semitism, you also adopt the weepy-therapeutic-narcissistic vaporing of the Left -- namely: you were oh-so-offended and hurt and "personally attacked" by posts like mine that talk about Palestinian ambulances and medics have the hell shot out of them (and killed -- and beaten and tortured in alarming numbers -- by IDF war criminals... You prance and preen as a Joan of Arc seeking "truth" and combating "haters"...instead, you are a blatant censor and a vile racist (gotta look out for them "P's", remember) who cheerfully admits she censors. THEN you had the nerve to blast away all day yesterday about how these unnamed troglodyte "haters" on the other side -- presumably those who might post something critical of Israel and of your hero, Ariel Sharo Same ol' stuff, different site, eh Jaunty? AGAviator posted on 2002-08-26 16:52:15 ET There is no question that you have capability and know your stuff.... but will anyone research your posts? Will anyone care to realize that on LP you were tried and convicted of objective opinions based on both MadDog and yukon with hostess, there. You are an outstanding poster, AG... I don't give a damn what the others say about ya.
You are an outstanding poster, AG... I don't give a damn what the others say about ya. Sheesh, buck, have you no shame? Can't you post this sychophant butt kissing on the PM? You two look like idiots fawning over one another ad nauseum. Not that I care, but, egads, try to muster up an iota of dignity. And the answer is: NO, NOBODY WILL CARE, NOBODY WILL RESEARCH THE POSTS.......only you buck--you are the wind beneath AG's wings.
You two look like idiots fawning over one another ad nauseum. Not that I care, but, egads, try to muster up an iota of dignity Continuing your obsessive, vulgar, and pathological attacks after being asked by the forum manager in Post #187 40 minutes ago to give it a rest, I see.
That right there is funny. Butt kissing, brown nosing--I call it like I see it. No attack, just the facts and you two were just whining for facts. I think even you know that it's true. Take it to PM. Christine is going to tire quickly of your pings. This isn't a sand box. Grow up.
Seems like it hasn't dawned on you that Christine is the one who locked down the other thread because she thought it unproductive, and who asked everybody in Post #187 to give it a rest. Your reply: "I'm not vulgar. No, not me. Calling someone a brown nose is not vulgar when I do it. I'm just calling like it see it." Looks like you're due for some ***edification.***
We all know why the other post was locked down. Only you and Buckie dream that it was on the verge of "stellar" when the lot of us accepted it needed to be flushed. Giving it a rest doesn't mean pinging her to every post YOU DEEM not up to forum decorum. Nobody asked you to be the self proclaimed site monitor. You were simply asked to take your butt kissing and brown nosing to PM. You sure aren't qualified to give edification to a piss ant, let along any posters here at 4um.
And you were told to "please" stop the vulgar remarks, which you naturally are incapable of doing because you have nothing of content to communicate and you can't bear the thought of not saying anything at all.
Brown nosing and butt kissing are the appropriate verbs to describe the verbal exchanges between you and buck. That right there is a fact. It should also be taken to PM. Aren't you going to ping Christine to buck's response about butt licking that didn't describe any content at all. Come on, now, if you are going to be the self proclaimed site monitor, you best turn buckie in for his vulgar remark. Or shall you carry on with more hypocricy?
As you yourself say, he's responding to a "butt kissing" remark by you. If it's vulgar it's because you made it so originally. Hey buck, on Post #198 I said I would no longer reply in kind to the provocations by the usual subjects, and see how quickly they run out of gas by being unable to cite data and facts. Care to give it a try?
Butt licking doesn't describe the content of the posts between the two of you.....butt kissing does. We all know what the terms brown noser and butt kisser mean, so don't play stupid. I didn't make if vulgar, it is what it is. I do not, and will not, deflect from my remarks. You are attempting to make an issue out of a non issue because you want to be self proclaimed site monitor. Another epic failure on your part. Like I said, when you and buck want to brown nose and butt kiss, do it on PM. And if you are going to respond to folks noting your butt kissing and brown nosing, don't bring butt licking into the exchange......or anus as you like to do.
I'm not the one who decided to lock down the other thread, and I had nothing to do with the locking down. You're the one sniveling about my post to you, and you'll lose if either the high road or the low road is taken. All I'm doing is pointing out that none of you can live by the standards you demand of your detractors. And none of you can go for any length of time citing facts and keeping away from the vulgar and off-topic. Like now.
I'm not sniveling, I merely voted your post most vulgar as you were hypocritically pointing out the how vulgar other posts are. Your vulgar posts had a big part in shutting down that thread. It's extremely dishonest to deny that FACT. Man up and accept your responsibility. Sheesh, you've been playing the victim card ad nauseum, moaning, bitching, complaining and sniveling about others doing WHAT YOU DO. I don't play the victim card and you've never stepped foot on the high road. Enough with your lies.
Lying seems to be part of the "debunker" mentality. Their patron un-saint "The Less Than Amazing Randi" and the Septical Inquirer crowd have been caught more than once. Their mindset also seems to be "The Champions of Official Orthodoxy" whatever the current official orthodoxy is. The debunkers have made more twists and turns than a corkscrew. Every time the "received" wisdom from the Holy Establishment changes their opinion immediately changes with it - "and that's the way it's been forever".I have little patience for them because "the lights are on but there is nobody home". They do not think they regurgitate. And because it is either a fixation or something that they are, in some cases, paid to believe the likelihood of their ever waking up is vanishingly small. Still they are useful for one thing and that is making us think and to refine our understanding of the facts. We do have a couple of advantages over them though. The truth is the basic fundamental isness and is the reality and because of that their lies have to constantly be repeated over and over and over to keep them in place whereas the truth just is. The other advantage we have is that we can be wrong a thousand times and still be right as it only takes "1" incontrovertable fact to show that what they are pushing is a lie whereas they cannot admit error even once or else their entire edifice of lies crumbles.
LIE Original_Intent posted on 2010-07-23 16:49:06 ET REALITY: 14 CFR 61.133 - Commercial pilot privileges and limitations CHAPTER I - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBCHAPTER D - AIRMEN PART 61 - CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS subpart f - COMMERCIAL PILOTS 61.133 - Commercial pilot privileges and limitations. (a) Privileges(1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft (i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and (ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.
Careful there - you might throw your elbow out patting yourself on the back. Once again you demonstrate your willingness to twist and distort the data to suit your distorted misrepresentations. A Commercial Pilot's Certificate DOES NOT convey at certification the ability or right to Pilot a multi-pilot Airliner. While it does convey the right to be a co-pilot on most major airlines an Airline Transport Pilot License is the norm AND IS REQUIRED to sit as Pilot and Captain. It is a considerably higher rating and requires a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time logged on flights of greater than 50 NM and has a night flying and instrument requirement as well. A Commercial Pilots Certificate, while conveying the ability to fly for pay on a LIMITED level, DOES NOT CONVEY A LICENSCE TO FLY AN AIRLINER and as such is A LEARNER'S PERMIT to learn to fly one and to accumulate the hours necessary to qualify for an Airline Transport Pilot License which is what is required to set in the Pilot Seat of a multi-pilot Airliner. Your attempt to misrepresent Hanjour's qualifications to inflate them beyond their level is simply an attempt to confuse and to obscure the fact that by all accounts Hanjour was an INCOMPETENT. From your own link: Hanjour met none of the requirements for an Airline Transport Pilot's License and given his poor command of English it is doubtful that he truly met the requirements for the Commercial Pilot's Certificate. Further we know from every reliable witness testimony from his schools and instructors, including his attempt to rent a single engine Cessna for which he was turned down THREE TIMES, that Hanjour WAS INCOMPETENT as a pilot. We also know that he HAD NEVER sat behind the stick on a Jet Aircraft OF ANY KIND. The largest aircraft he is ever known to have flown is a Piper Apache Twin Engine Propeller Driven 4 seater. Your attempts to misrepresent Hanjour's Licensing and Qualifications amount to nothing more than an attempt to inflate and overstate his abilities and qualifications as a pilot. The bottom line is that Hanjour had never under any circumstances flown a jet aircraft whether single or multi-engine, was not qualified or licensed to fly a Jetliner, and by all evidences from witness testimony of his instructors likely should never have been given a Commercial rating in the first place as he was incompetent as a pilot and his command of English was insufficient to meet the criteria stipulated for the rating.
(b) Limitations. A commercial pilot's license is not a learner's permit. A commercial pilot license does authorize a pilot to be a pilot in command for a sinble aircraft engine - remember saying he couldn't even fly a single engine airplnane, huh? - and a co pilot on a multi pilot aircraft. Once again, contrary to your claims, you are WRONG, and once again you try to move the goalposts after your statement is debunked. Additional type certifications can and are completed on ground school, simulators and other methods than getting direct instruction from a right seater.
(b) Limitations. A commercial pilot's license is not a learner's permit. A commercial pilot license does authorize a pilot to be a pilot in command for a sinble aircraft engine - remember saying he couldn't even fly a single engine airplnane, huh? - and a co pilot on a multi pilot aircraft. Once again, contrary to your claims, you are WRONG, and once again you try to move the goalposts after your statement is debunked. Additional type certifications can and are completed on ground school, simulators and other methods than getting direct instruction from a right seater. How charming. Caught in your disinformational inflation of Hanjour's/Hanjoor's abilities and qualifications as a pilot you are now trying to wiggle out of the trap of your own devising. As far as flying a Jet Airliner a Commercial Pilot's Certificate IS a Learner's Permit. It does not convey a license to fly a multi-engine Jumbo Jet using a Pilot and Co-Pilot. The most it conveys, and only if someone is willing to hire him for it (HA!) is to sit in the Co-Pilot's seat. And the evidence and record of testimony is quite clear - HE WAS TURNED DOWN THREE TIMES on the rental of a single engine Cessna 172 because in the opinion of the instructor checking him out he was not capable enough to fly it alone. Twist and turn as you might that is documented in testimony. As for any other certifications there is nothing in evidence showing that he had any. I presume you have something which documents any other certifications (saving a single engine VFR license which he had to have prior to the botched Commercial Certification)? I didn't think so. We have been over and over and over this territory. Hanjoor/Hanjour has been repeatedly characterized in testimony, and in interviews, as INCOMPETENT as a pilot, your cavils and quibbles and diversions do not change that FACT.
I have never said Hanjour was a good pilot. It is your need to call Hanjour an alleged good pilot, so you can then claim that showing he was not a good pilot, disproves he was a hijacker. I have repeatedly and consistently said Hanjour was a marginal pilot who let his airplane get away from him and ended up hitting a reinforced, mostly empty, part of the Pentagon that did little or no damage to US interests, at an oblique angle which did not even maximize the possible damage from the impact. As the flight school instructors state explicitly, Hanjour had trouble on takeoffs and landings and English, none of which he needed to do, but nevertheless they had no doubt that he did know enough to take over an airplane mid flight and crash it. Consistent with the Half Truther MO, you ignore that section of the flight school interview. At the time of impact Hanjour's aircraft was banking with the starboard engine hitting the 2nd story and the port engine hitting barely above the ground. This was not a "precision pilot maneuver."
LOL! Have I made any such claim? No. Can you even prove he was on the airplane? No. It is simply one datum among many that taken together make the "Official Conspiracy Theory™" uncredible. While you will not admit it as such what has been demonstrated is that Hanjour/Hanjoor was NOT a competent pilot. That one datum becomes significant when compared against datums of comparable magnitude such as the very tight and skilled maneuvers which Flight 77 went through in its approach on the Pentagram. As well it was a demonstration that whoever was flying that plane knew how to navigate and operate the avionics on a 757. As well is the datum that the one spot on the Pentagram that was hit was the one guaranteed to do the least physical damage while "coincidentally" destroying records, and killing people, who were undertaking an audit to locate the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that disappeared under Dov Zakheim's watch. Just a few of the funny "coincidences" eh? Amazing how many coincidences occurred that day - like the "coincidence" of the 5 Dancing Israelis filming and high fiving over the collapse of the Twin Towers. All kinds of little coincidences. Just like the amazing coincidence that the surveillance cameras for all 4 airline boarding ramps "malfunctioned", or that NONE of the 8 pilots on 4 aircraft tapped out the 4 digit hijack code, or transmitted anything indicating something was amiss. Amazing coincidences. You are simply trying to isolate on that one datum while avoiding how it fits into the larger picture as one datum among many. You are, as usual, engaging in a disinformation tactic and attempting to make of that one datum, among many, Mt. Everest. I have achieved what I set out to do - illustrate how you were engaging in dissembling and disinformation. And it should be clear to anyone, except a paid shill, that Hani Hanjour/Hanjoor was not capable of performing the observed maneuvers of Flight 77.
Have I made any such claim? No. Can you even prove he was on the airplane? I know it's hard to keep track of your lies when you contantly have to change your story, but it's all there on the server and readily searchable. Not only did you say Hanjour didn't have a license, you said he was supposed to have flown an airplane on the level of the Red Baron. That is simply one version of events by people who were not present and did not carefully track the movements of the craft on its way to crashing into rear parking-lot facing wall of an empty section of the Pentagon. By all credible accounts and testimony from people who actually knew him, and were qualified to judge, Hanjour was incompetent as a pilot and to such a degree that he was turned down for rental of a single engine Cessna. And you want us to believe, on the strength of a possibly forged or bought Pilot's Certificate (for which you can show no background or training to merit that he could fly a 757 the way the Red Baron flew a Fokker Triplane.), Get real. Original_Intent posted on 2010-07-21 14:28:40 ET
You are becoming truly amusing. The more frantic you get at splitting hairs the more obvious it becomes that you are trying to do so and in so doing attempting to create a false picture in the mind of anyone reading this thread. First, as a bit of aside, it seems that it is not within the scope of your intellect to conceive that anyone could look at a set of facts and draw a conclusion beyond that which you are trying to dictate. LOL! No, if someone draws a conclusion different from the one you are trying to force on them of course they have to be lying. Spare me. And I stand by the comment. As we both know from the evidence introduced that Hanjour was so incompetent that at one point his instructors and I quote: "...As already noted, an instructor at Arizona Aviation thought his earlier failings there were due primarily to his poor flight skills, and not because of his language inadequacies. More importantly, again, this training actually occurred at Jet Tech. Turning to the documentary record, as article in the New York Times entitled "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence" noted, his instructors there "found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine". As a result, they actually reported him to the FAA and requested confirmation that his certificate was legitimate. The staff there "feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner." Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the academy, told the Times, "There was no suspicion as far as evildoing. It was more of a very typical instructional concern that ‘you really shouldn’t be in the air.’"43..." Source : Al-Qaeda's Top Gun Also from the same article: "...Furthermore, there remains an open question about whether Hanjour was actually qualified to receive that certificate in the first place. According to Heather Awsumb, a spokeswoman for Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS), a union that represents FAA employees, "The real problem is that regular oversight is handed over to private industry", since private contractors "receive between $200 and $300 for each check flight. If they get a reputation for being tough, they won’t get any business." 38 Given that, as you indirectly admit that Hanjour/Hanjoor had a poor command of English, and a good command of English is one of the requirements for licensing, it is eminently questionable as to how he was able to secure one at all when that is taken in combination with his known incompetence behind the stick of an aircraft.
It looks to me like the 2nd page of those documents you posted shows that the Commercial Certification/Rating (Piper aircraft used) expired on Leap Year day 2/29/00, a little over a year and a half before 9/11.
Nobody ever said that Hanjour didn't have or possess an active pilot's license. What seems amiss id that FormerLurker said Hanjour didn't possess one. Now, what this all means is FormerLurker doesn't know much about flight training and Hanjour OBVIOUSLY went through flight training to receive certification EVEN IF IT WAS INSTRUMENTATION. SO, I don't understand why you are posting all kinds of links and threads towards his certification when ONLY FL and his pal, O_I said he wasn't qualified to begin with. The point is moot. Hanjour went through flight training. FL and O_I both lied or are ignorant becasue of their conspiracy threads.
Now, what this all means is FormerLurker doesn't know much about flight training and Hanjour OBVIOUSLY went through flight training to receive certification EVEN IF IT WAS INSTRUMENTATION. SO, I don't understand why you are posting all kinds of links and threads towards his certification when ONLY FL and his pal, O_I said he wasn't qualified to begin with. The point is moot. Hanjour went through flight training. FL and O_I both lied or are ignorant becasue of their conspiracy threads. What I recall is that FL doubted his licensing/certification because of only seeing verbal claims made about it through the years but no paper-trail documentation for evidence. I think FL requested that you post the evidence if you could but the validity of the documentation is still in doubt due to irregularities about requirements to qualify, etc. Hanjour/Hanjoor is alleged to have gone through flight training or someone pretending to be him may have done so. It's not a lie if that's not accepted as an indisputable fact, what with so many forged documents in the news these days and historically. I posted the thread and links for his alleged Airman Records as a convenience for myself and others who might be interested in studying them closer without having to search through lengthy threads plural for the scattered info or go to the site that can run very slowly and shut down, as it did for me. At least 2 documents there show that he was not approved by a Brunhilde Bradley. The 2 documents AGA posted which I commented about here show that, once upon a time, it looks like he or some character by that name was given a Piper class Com. Cert. that expired quite some time before 9/11? Who knows what instrumentation, etc., might have changed in the meantime that would then be totally unfamiliar to a flyer re: said expired training? The Official Story is a Conspiracy Theory despite all who'd like to insist otherwise. Because that OCT/Official Conspiracy Theory narrative is guv-issued, your side has some guv-issued prop pieces to go along with it and some high and mighty sounding talking points. But, like lots of guv-issued things, the pieces are often mismatched -- like some plane parts "found" at the WTC -- and some of the data looks deliberately planted or wrong and so on. The fact is that the Official belief system about 9/11 is lethal. Thousands and thousands of people have been dying and suffering all the years since; and so it must be questioned and investigated by us skeptics, you see, regardless of scorn or how comfortable your side is with what you've been told and believe you've seen or heard as convincing to you.
Great post. And many of us, not just O_I and FormerLurker, doubted the legitimacy of Hanjour/Hanjoor's "license." All the instructors who have made public statements said he COULD NOT FLY. So that must mean that someone, somewhere sold him a ticket.
Thank you, James. I don't know what "G-man" A and "G-man" b are so annoyed about so often. As has been aknowledge several times, buckeroo did manage to establish that there are Hanjour/Hanjoor certification documents, not just verbal claims about them. Why he was certified/licensed when the evidence indicates that he wasn't qualified is an entirely different issue and far from simply a .guv faith-based one. The fact that the paper-trail exists surely isn't unquestionable proof in and of itself that it's valid. Why would you two OCT/Official Conspiracy Theory guys take it so personally if you didn't have a hand in the shenanigans to sell or give him a ticket that he shouldn't have had? You can be fairly certain that papers for show animals are inspected and rejected with more stringent standards than you act like we should apply to an alleged hijacker and all those who apparently bent and broke the rules for him. As for impossible standards set for your side's alleged witnesses, are any of them available for cross-examination? They definitely ain't all upstanding and trusty sorts by my estimation. No doubt you'd agree with me that everyone who claims to be a well-intentioned and sincere Truther isn't, so you should just expect that a number of your speakers and evidence exhibits and such are not going to pass muster either. This is, afterall, an Information War that has evidently been PsyOpped/led astray to some extent on both sides. If we could agree on that much as a core Truth, I think there'd be less hostility flying around or should be somewhat less of that, anyway. Then we could make some headway on why that's been done. Now, A & b, who honestly sounds more believable to you in this comparative example? Mr. Anonymous "Psychic Seer" of the Official Fizzycs Spinorama or the next witness who is named and seems much more credible, imo: Who is this man? 9-11 official story started minutes after. 9/11 Witness: Jennifer Oberstein - No Plane
This just goes to show that eyewitnesses are not always right on what they hear or what they see. There was a video taped by a documentary film group that happened to be filming at the time the first plane hit the North Tower and captured it's impact with the North Tower.
The Naudet Brothers? I suspect they were hired a bit later to fake footage for alleged Flight 11 as "proof". One of my hypotheticals is that alleged Flight 93 (occult meaning of that number being The Law) was cast to be destroyed first but that scenario was maybe hijacked by intel, et al. Some supporting evidence for that possibility here:
I have wondered, and speculated, if there was not someone on board 93 who understood Avionics well enough to find and disconnect the remote control system. Someone aware of the system and was able to deduce and trace where the control lines would be and find "the box" and return control of the aircraft to the pilot or it malfunctioned with the same effect. The plane could not be allowed to survive as the moment it landed and the story told the jig would be up. So, they shot it down to protect the guilty. Then, like GI Jane in Iraq, they concoct a cock and bull story about a technically impossible cell call and the heroism of the valiant passengers overcoming the scary scary Terrists' only to fall short.
I think the crew and passengers onboard the "hijacked aircraft" were either subdued or killed with some form of chemical agent introduced into the plane's ventilation system, THEN the remote control took over. Perhaps on Flight 93 the gas failed to release, thus when the remote control took over, the crew took steps to counteract it, leading to the necessity of them being shot down.
I think the crew and passengers onboard the "hijacked aircraft" were either subdued or killed with some form of chemical agent introduced into the plane's ventilation system, THEN the remote control took over. Perhaps on Flight 93 the gas failed to release, thus when the remote control took over, the crew took steps to counteract it, leading to the necessity of them being shot down. Definitely 93 is a puzzler. Something went wrong from the point of view of the conspirators. What it was is the puzzler.
Alleged Flight 11 wasn't reported as terror until alleged Flight 175 was reported as such. Could be it was hoped that the Fl. 175 scenario would be canceled if the Fl. 11 upstaging knocked alleged Fl. 93 from the NY scripting. I suspect that UA93 and UA175, which were actual planes scheduled to fly that day, might have been intended by the inside jobbers to be disappeared into the black market for dual use parts and $$$. UA93 was apparently spotted as intact afterwards rather than parted out or otherwise transferred to the underworld, perhaps because the inside jobbers knew it was being watched after their plans went awry. A youngish commander of the Ohio flight crew who were deployed to intercept UA93 was reported dead of a heart attack soon after. Because I am a No Planes researcher/investigator, I don't believe it was shot down or that there were "valiant passengers" aboard who decided to take it upon themselves to kill everybody before said hijackers did by not waiting for air support to arrive to possibly bring the plane and passengers down to a safe landing. The reported meandering and moseying flight paths do appear to indicate that there was a remote control struggle back and forth between hijackers and counter- hijackers but I think it may be just for show. I suspect there are people on the victims lists that were killed or vanished and their names inserted as a cover for their disappearance and the buildings, insurance scamming, and that sort of thing. Rather mundane Mafia-esq criminality but on a very large scale is what the NO Planes section of the Truth Movement was/is pursuing -- not really "kooky" stuff at all if looked at closely and that's what makes calls from some seeming Truther Top Guns to tar and feather us as "well poisoners" so bizarre and complicit sounding.
At this point there are few things I rule out categorically as the truth is often times stranger than fiction. As well, at this point in the game, so much in the way of false trails and disinformation has been planted that I tread very carefully in making assertions without having a firm footing, and there is not a lot of firm footing in the PsyOp that was called 911. Much of 911, I believe, has to be looked at first as a Psychological Operation with Psychiatrists, likely CIA/Mossad/MI-6(think Tavistock Institute), planning the show. 911 was conducted for the effect it would create. It was an effect calculated to numb, terrorize, and herd people into accepting actions, presumptions, and incursions upon their liberty, along with unneeded wars, in ways that would have been strongly resisted without that Psychological/Psychiatric set-up. Remember the news coverage and the overly frequent replaying of the video of the planes crashing into the towers? That was done, I believe, to reinforce and increase the affect of the horror of the event. It was not just the Newsghouls in a feeding frenzy but had a specific purpose. One of the things that has stuck with me is something John Coleman commented on in an interview with Jeff Rense back during the Kosovo bombing campaign mess (at least I believe it was Coleman - been a few years - but the datum stuck and fits as the M.O. for the 911 PsyOp) that a leaked Tavistock Manual contained a section on how to influence a large population group through the use of a massive shock to numb them and temporarily take away their normal resistance to incursions upon their freedoms and/or to resist activities they otherwise would. There was a large agenda predicated on 911 and its psychological affect to undercut resistance even to the point of having some individuals treat anyone as asking questions as a "traitor". Remember the bot refrain - "why do you hate Amurka'"? This was reinforced by other PsyOp outlets such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The obvious, to me anyway, PsyOp reinforcement going on was one of the first things that convinced me with utter cold certainty that 911 was an inside job. I had doubts almost from day 1 because of NORAD's incompetent non-response. I was in the military and have been an aviation nut since I was barely out of diapers so I have a good feel for what NORAD is and the level of skill and knowledge it represents. There are many things NORAD is, but incompetent to this degree they are not. Therefore if one rejects the NORAD incompetence plea (note that no one at NORAD has ever been disciplined in any way however small) then that leads immediately to the logical inference that the 911 terror event had support from the highest levels of the Military Industrial/Intelligence Complex. So, the first thing we can conclude from the events around 911 was that it was conducted with the blessing of the forces now in control of our government. The rest is details and the mechanics of how the operation was conducted. So, here we have arrived at the basic "why". Why was the 911 operation conducted? And who conducted it? The why becomes obvious in light of penumbra of surrounding events - the MIC needs wars to justify the existence of its machinery, status, and ability to make money. Historically international banking criminals such as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers profit heavily from wars, and as well there is an implied control agenda conforming to a long term plan to establish greater control over all the people's of the world. From there we could quickly digress into other supporting datums, such as "Agenda 21", but that would be a digression for the moment. So, we have established Motive i.e., political benefits - control. A secondary motive is financial as the inside players personally profit in money from all of the carnage they wreak (attractive if you are a psychotic conscienceless monster only interested in power and money). So, the circumstances and events continue to lead us back to a coterie of the most powerful interests in our current society - bankers, the military, military industrialists, and their political pawns - such as the former and current Imbeciles of The United States. So, now that we have the why motive and means we can then begin to expand the outline to fill in some of the broader headings. Technical know-how is easily provided by the black-ops/Intelligence community which is also the abode for the soulless Psychiatrists and Psychologists calculating the affects of their operation upon the target group - the American Public. As well they provide the know how in air operations, the operation of air defense, and explosives technology. I have seen and heard it said that the technical level in the black ops world is, at any given moment, 20 to 40 years ahead of what is available in the unclassified world. I believe that to be a true statement based on the snippets, inferences, and leaks of what little does seep out through the cracks. As illustration of what I mean the late Mr. Northrop, founder of Northrop Aviation, is reported, perhaps apocryphally, to have confided tearfully to a small group at an aside to a dinner party "we have the stars but they won't let us go". Who the "they" is was never clarified, but it is instructive at giving a hint as to the level of technology available that is kept out of sight and public awareness. (As an aside I personally think that the technology to quickly, and relatively easily, explore the entire solar system has been available since at least the early 80's if not as far back as the late 60's. The English Hacker McKinnon whom the Pentagon is desperately trying to get extradited from England reported as one of his finds in the Pentagon's computer system the personnel transfer of officers between units of the extraterrestrial fleet is a tantalizing tidbit suggestive of a level of technology the general public is conditioned to think of as "science fiction".) Having taken the long way around to set it up yes I do believe the "no-plane" scenario to be technically possible, but I also do not believe it to be the case for a couple of factors. 1. Holograms don't make sounds. They are images only and as such to create convincing realism one has to have the sound effects. 2. The mechanics of creating such an illusion would be technically more difficult to produce, and likely require more people "in the know", than just using real hijacked aircraft. So, for reasons of practicality, not lack of technology, I think the no-plane scenario a no-go. I do believe it to be a planted disinformation meme and trail. Returning to the main event. We could easily make a list of things that we can nail down with some certainty: 1. The 911 event as staged could not have gone off as it did without the support of people at the highest levels of power in our society and government. The operation was conducted in a manner and fashion well beyond the capabilities of a group of semi-literate Arabs (not to disparage them it is simply true) and orchestrated by cellphone out of cave in Afghanistan. 2. Without discussing their relative merits the technical skills and know-how exist to have implemented any of the major contending theories of how it was carried out. 3. As alluded to in "1" above the supposed hijackers were, based upon extensive research into their backgrounds, neither skillful to carry this off and neither were they "devout muslim fanatics™". By all records researched of their behavior they appear to have been black ops mercenaries who were sacrificed as pawns in a larger maneuver. From there we have a starting place to fill out the rest of the details. And while the details are of interest they are not necessary to the most important conclusion: 911 was very definitely an inside job.
Thank you for your eloquent response, sir. I would like to reply to it in a few days to be able to better address some of the issues you spoke of. For now, I can tell you speaking for myself that I suspected very soon after 9/11 that there were only "paper planes" of a sort being reported and projected for FX before there was a No Planes research and investigation branch of the Truth Movement. Re: holograms: I was in line for something at Disneyland about 30 years ago when I heard a small voice saying, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." It was a tiny, lifelike and moving hologram of Princess Leia from Star Wars. There was also a really cool place with 3D stuff flying around that looked so real it seemed like you could touch them. However, the No Planes research is focused on CGI/Computer Graphic Imagery and not holograms. Ref: Killtown's CGI work at http://killtown.911review.org/.
You are most welcome and I thank you for your kind reply. While I will await your full thoughts before expressing much in the way of misgivings (and peruse your link). I would simply suggest that any type of imagery would require sound effects in order to be effective, thus requiring an omnidirectional sound projection system to accompany any image projection. Again, while technically doable I do not think it a best fit to the available data. However, I'll withhold final judgment pending more data.
Here is a complete 911 video from various networks. http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
#962. To: A K A Stone (#961)
Thank you worthy sir.
deleted
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#16. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#14)
(Edited)
The title of this topic is: 9/11 demolition theory challenged. The info accesible through Post #982 refutes claims like Mark Loizeaux's
#19. To: GreyLmist, christine (#16)
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this
#29. To: buckeroo, GreyLmist (#19)
#32. To: FormerLurker (#29)
Yes buckie, you cried like a little girl when nobody wanted to buy the BS you were selling, and instead, people posted facts and evidence which tore your little fairie tale to shreads.
#163. To: James Deffenbach (#32)
#166. To: IRTorqued (#163)
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
#175. To: christine, buckeroo (#166)
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
#200. To: AGAviator (#175)
#494. To: AGAviator, LP Banning notice. (#480)
#265. To: JauntyBeesting (#246)
#203. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#200)
There is no question that you have capability and know your stuff.... but will anyone research your posts? Will anyone care to realize that on LP you were tried and convicted of objective opinions based on both MadDog and yukon with hostess, there.
#205. To: abraxas, christine, buckeroo (#203)
(Edited)
Can't you post this sychophant butt kissing on the PM?
#207. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#205)
obsessive, vulgar, and pathological attacks
#210. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#207)
(Edited)
Christine is going to tire quickly of your pings. This isn't a sand box. Grow up
#213. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#210)
#216. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#213)
You were simply asked to take your butt kissing and brown nosing to PM
#219. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#216)
#226. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#219)
Aren't you going to ping Christine to buck's response about butt licking that didn't describe any content at all
[quote] And, I am discussed as butt-kissing your ass by recognizing a damned good poster? [/quote]
Any other attempts to deflect from your own remarks which initiate these exchanges?
#230. To: AGAviator (#226)
#235. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#230)
(Edited)
I didn't make if vulgar, it is what it is. I do not, and will not, deflect from my remarks. You are attempting to make an issue out of a non issue because you want to be self proclaimed site monitor.
#236. To: AGAviator (#235)
I had nothing to do with the locking down. You're the one sniveling about my post to you, and you'll lose if either the high road or the low road is taken.
#238. To: abraxas (#236)
#245. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#238)
Lying seems to be part of the "debunker" mentality
You, and AGGravator, have been misrepresenting Hanjour's LEARNER'S PERMIT as a license to BE a commercial pilot, when all it did was give him a license to LEARN to be a commercial pilot UNDER SUPERVISION.
TITLE 14 - AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
#270. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#245)
(b) Limitations. (1) A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited. The limitation may be removed when the person satisfactorily accomplishes the requirements listed in 61.65 of this part for an instrument rating in the same category and class of aircraft listed on the person's commercial pilot certificate.
#284. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#270)
From your own link:
#295. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, christine, wudidiz, abraxas, Critter, IRTorqued, all (#284)
From your own link:
#304. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#295)
(Edited)
Hanjoor/Hanjour has been repeatedly characterized in testimony, and in interviews, as INCOMPETENT as a pilot
#308. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#304)
It is your need to call Hanjour an alleged good pilot, so you can then claim that showing he was not a good pilot, disproves he was a hijacker.
#310. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#308)
It is your need to call Hanjour an alleged good pilot, so you can then claim that showing he was not a good pilot, disproves he was a hijacker. LOL!
#321. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#310)
(Edited)
By all credible accounts and testimony from people who actually knew him, and were qualified to judge, Hanjour was incompetent as a pilot and to such a degree that he was turned down for rental of a single engine Cessna. And you want us to believe, on the strength of a possibly forged or bought Pilot's Certificate (for which you can show no background or training to merit that he could fly a 757 the way the Red Baron flew a Fokker Triplane.)
#325. To: Original_Indent, BUCKEROO (#321)
#464. To: AGAviator (#325)
#466. To: GreyLmist (#464)
It looks to me like the 2nd page of those documents you posted shows that the Commercial Certification/Rating (Piper aircraft used) expired on Leap Year day 2/29/00, a little over a year and a half before 9/11.
#574. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#466)
(Edited)
Nobody ever said that Hanjour didn't have or possess an active pilot's license. What seems amiss id that FormerLurker said Hanjour didn't possess one.
#604. To: GreyLmist, Original_Intent, FormerLurker (#574)
But, like lots of guv-issued things, the pieces are often mismatched -- like some plane parts "found" at the WTC -- and some of the data looks deliberately planted or wrong and so on. The fact is that the Official belief system about 9/11 is lethal. Thousands and thousands of people have been dying and suffering all the years since; and so it must be questioned and investigated by us skeptics, you see, regardless of scorn or how comfortable your side is with what you've been told and believe you've seen or heard as convincing to you.
#789. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo, AGAviator, FormerLurker, Original_Intent (#604)
(Edited)
Great post. And many of us, not just O_I and FormerLurker, doubted the legitimacy of Hanjour/Hanjoor's "license." All the instructors who have made public statements said he COULD NOT FLY. So that must mean that someone, somewhere sold him a ticket.
#824. To: GreyLmist (#789)
(Edited)
#851. To: RickyJ (#824)
This just goes to show that eyewitnesses are not always right on what they hear or what they see. There was a video taped by a documentary film group that happened to be filming at the time the first plane hit the North Tower and captured it's impact with the North Tower.
#859. To: GreyLmist (#851)
One of my hypotheticals is that alleged Flight 93 (occult meaning of that number being The Law) was cast to be destroyed first but that scenario was maybe hijacked by intel, et al.
#862. To: Original_Intent, GreyLmist (#859)
I have wondered, and speculated, if there was not someone on board 93 who understood Avionics well enough to find and disconnect the remote control system. Someone aware of the system and was able to deduce and trace where the control lines would be and find "the box" and return control of the aircraft to the pilot or it malfunctioned with the same effect.
#864. To: FormerLurker, GreyLmist (#862)
I have wondered, and speculated, if there was not someone on board 93 who understood Avionics well enough to find and disconnect the remote control system. Someone aware of the system and was able to deduce and trace where the control lines would be and find "the box" and return control of the aircraft to the pilot or it malfunctioned with the same effect.
#883. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker, All (#864)
(Edited)
Definitely 93 is a puzzler. Something went wrong from the point of view of the conspirators. What it was is the puzzler.
#886. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker, wudidiz, abraxas, christine, HOUNDDAWG, Eric Stratton, RickyJ, IRTorqued, Critter, all, *Escape From ElPee* (#883)
(Edited)
Rather mundane Mafia-esq criminality but on a very large scale is what the NO Planes section of the Truth Movement was/is pursuing -- not really "kooky" stuff at all if looked at closely and that's what makes calls from some seeming Truther Top Guns to tar and feather us as "well poisoners" so bizarre and complicit sounding.
1.a. A subset of this would be the need to create real physical damage that can be photographed and is convincing to a public unaware that it was a staged event.
So, using a holgraphic projection is simply more complex to implement than using real aircraft. This is augumented very strongly by the fact that the Bush Administration, while making pious high profile propaganda statements about getting the perpetrators, fought the creation of an investigatory commission for over a year. When the commission was created it was hamstrung by limitations in scope and budget. The final report of said commission has now been repudiated by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the commission saying that the government lied even to them. (Why would government agencies and personnel lie to a government commission if not to obscure and keep incriminating information under cover?)
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." ~ Benjamin Disraeli
#954. To: Original_Intent (#886)
(Edited)
#960. To: GreyLmist (#954)
#961. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, christine, jethro tull, former lurker, eric stratton, itsalmosttolate, abraxass (#960)
Replies to Comment # 961.
#971. To: A K A Stone (#961)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 961.